Having done aircraft repair on light aircraft, I think that CFRP is going to prove to be much more durable and easier to repair than aluminum. One of the difficult aspects of aluminum structures is that aluminum bends, and an impact in one area can cause distortions far from where the impact occurred, which is often impossible to completely correct; one example was a 172 that had suffered a very hard landing years earlier and showed no external scars, but the floor stringers to which the main landing gear was attached were noticeably distorted. Complete repair would have been prohibitively expensive. CFRP, on the other hand, will ultimately break but not permanently bend. This actually makes assessing and repairing damage easier, as long as it can be thoroughly inspected (which the FAA will require in any case.) I believe once the mechanics get accustomed to CFRP they will never want to see another aluminum airliner. I have also done a fair amount of fiberglass work, and while it can be messy it is not difficult and with care repairs can be made that are as strong as the original and virtually undetectable.

The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler

Did anybody notice that on slide 13 they show a clear advantage for CFRP vs. aluminum for a nominal lightning strike? The issue of lightning has been bandied about this site for the past three years. Some of those concerns deal with systemic dissipation of the lightning charge; others have dealt with damage at the point of the strike. According to this slide, CFRP is clearly superior, resulting in superficial damage which can be deferred for repair, compared to a perforated aluminmum panel which must be dispatched for repair.